Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

Mr. Ramesh S.R vs Mr. Shree Swathi Interiors & on 11 October, 2021

    IN THE COURT OF XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
    MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (ACMM­34)

          PRESENT: Sri NAGESH KORGA MOGER, B.Com.LLB.
                   XXXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
                   MAGISTRATE,
           Dated : This the 11th day of October, 2021.

                       C.C.No.56933/2018

COMPLAINANT                  :   Mr. Ramesh S.R.,
                                 S/o. M.G. Sathyanarayana Rao,
                                 Aged about 49 years,
                                 No.169, 3rd Cross, 4th Main,
                                 Hanumanthnagar,
                                 Near Ganesh Bhavan Hotel,
                                 Bengaluru ­560 019.
                                 Rep. By Spl. Power of Attorney
                                 Holder,
                                 Sri Madhusudhan L.
                                 (By Mr.B.C. Venkatesh­ Advocate)
                                          V/s
ACCUSED                      :   Mr. Shree Swathi Interiors &
                                 Exteriors,
                                 Rep.by its Proprietor,
                                 Mr. Anil Patil,
                                 S/o. Govindarao Patil,
                                 Aged about 42 years,
                                 No.158/1, 24th 'B' Cross,
                                 4th Main Road, Karesandra,
                                 Banashankari 2nd Stage,
                                 Bengaluru ­560 070.

                                 (By Mr.B. Raje Gowda ­ Advocate)
1    Date of Commencement         26.03.2018
     of offence
2    Date of report of offence   12.06.2018
3    Presence of accused
     3a. Before the Court        27.02.2019
                              2                   C.C.No.56933/2018


    3b. Released on bail          27.02.2019
4   Name of the Complainant       Mr. Ramesh S.R.
5   Date of recording of        03.08.2018
    evidence
6   Date of closure of evidence 24.11.2020
7   Offences alleged            U/s 138 of the Negotiable
                                Instruments Act.
8   Opinion of Judge            Accused is not found guilty.


                      JUDGEMENT

The Private Complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the accused alleging that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

The complainant submits that the Accused approached him in the month of April 2017 and the borrowed a sum of of Rs.2,50,000/­ as hand loan on 20.4.2017 through TRGS/cheque and he executed necessary document for having the received the same.

3. The Complainant further submits that the Accused issued a cheque bearing No.742637 dtd.26.3.2018 for Rs.1,50,000/­ drawn on Karnataka Bank, Minerva Circle Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the Complainant towards part discharge of said debt.

3 C.C.No.56933/2018

4. It is further stated in the complaint that the Complainant presented the said cheque through his banker Citi Bank, M.G. Road branch, Bengaluru for realization. But the said cheque was dishonoured for "Exceeds arrangement"

with an endorsement dtd.31.3.2018. Thereafter, the Complainant got issued demand notice through RPAD on 25.04.2018 through his Counsel to the Accused. The notice was returned with a shara "No such firm" on 2.5.2018. Inspite of knowledge of legal notice the Accused has neither paid the Cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Therefore, the contention of the Complainant that the accused deliberately issued the Cheque in favour of the Complainant knowingly the fact of insufficient funds in his account. Therefore, the Complainant prays to convict and grant compensation.

5. The cognizance for offence was taken. The criminal case came to be registered against the accused person. The summons was issued to the accused person. The accused in obedience of the summons appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail.

4 C.C.No.56933/2018

6. The substance of the accusation was framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to try the case. Hence, the case was posted for complainant's evidence.

7. The Spl. Power of Attorney Holder of the Complainant examined himself as PW­1 and he got marked 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.

8. The statement as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence appeared against him. In view of compromise, the Accused have given up their evidence.

9. I heard the arguments.

10. Now the following points that arise for the consideration of this Court are :

1. "Whether the Complainant proves the cheque issued by the accused person dishonoured with an endorsement as "Exceeds arrangement"
and inspite of service of legal notice and demand the accused person failed to pay the cheque amount within stipulated period as such he has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act?"

2. What order ?

5 C.C.No.56933/2018

11. My answer to the above points are as follows :

POINT No.1 : In the Negative POINT No.2 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS

12. POINT No.1 - The Complainant filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of N.I. Act. In order to prove his case the Complainant examined himself as PW1 and and got marked in all 6 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. When the case was posted for defence evidence, both the Complainant and Accused along with their respective Counsels present before the court and filed Compromise Petition u/Sec.147 of N.I. Act stating that the case is settled. It is averred in the said petition that the Accused has paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ as as full and final settlement.

13. As per the Sec.147 of N.I. Act, the parties of the proceedings can compound the case. On perusal of petition, it is clear that the compromise arrived between the parties is free from force, coercion, threat etc. and deserves to be allowed. Therefore, the Point No.1 is answered in the Negative. 6 C.C.No.56933/2018

14. POINT No.2 : In view of discussion held in Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following :

ORDER Acting under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C., the application filed u/Sec. 147 of N.I. Act, is allowed. Since the full payment of amount is reported, Accused is acquitted.
The bail bonds executed by the accused shall continue till expiry of the appeal period. Thereafter, it shall be extinguished automatically. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of October, 2021) (NAGESH KORGA MOGER), XXXIV ACMM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
P.W.1 Sri Madhusudhan L.
2. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Ex.P.1           Spl. Power of Attorney
Ex.P.2           Cheque
Ex.P.3           Bank endorsement
Ex.P.4           Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P.5           Postal receipt
Ex.P.6           Unserved Postal cover
3. Witnesses examined on behalf of Accused : NIL
4. Documents marked on behalf of Accused : NIL (NAGESH KORGA MOGER), XXXIV ACMM, BENGALURU.